Loading...
PC MINS 20130723 Approved August 2,7, 2013 , CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES YV REGULAR MEETING JULY 23, 2013 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Emenhiser at 7:05 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Tomblin led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Gerstner, Nelson, Tomblin, and Chairman Emenhiser Absent: Commissioners Lewis and Tetreault and Vice Chairman Leon were excused. Also present were Community Development Director Rojas and Deputy Director Pfost. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The Agenda was unanimously approved as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas reported that at their July 16th meeting the City Council reviewed and approved the Planning Commission recommended code amendment language related to the Fence, Wall and Hedge Permit process. The City Council also directed staff to see how the fee for the Fence Wall and Hedge Permit application could be reduced and staff will present a report to the City Council on this subject at the August 6th meeting. He also reported that the City Council reviewed the Planning Commission's feedback on the Western Avenue Vision Plan. Director Rojas distributed three public comments and staff's responses to the comments related to agenda item No. 2. Chairman Emenhiser thanked Commissioner Tetreault for his attendance at the July 16th City Council meeting, COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items): None CONTINUED BUSINESS 1. Zone Text Amendment— Noticing procedure for City Tree Review Permits (Case No. ZON203-00239) Director Rojas presented the staff report, briefly reviewing the proposed modifications to the noticing procedure presented by staff at the previous meeting. He stated staff has worked with the City Attorney to craft the proposed code amendment language that is attached to the staff report in the form of a Resolution. He stated staff is seeking the Planning Commission's feedback on the language, and if it is acceptable staff is recommending the Commission adopt the Resolution included with the staff report, which will be forwarded to the City Council, Commissioner Tomblin moved to approved staff recommendation, seconded by Commissioner Nelson. The motion was approved, and PC Resolution 2013-17 was adopted, (4-0). PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. General Plan Update — Revisions to draft text Deputy Director Pfost presented the staff report, explaining the Commission has reviewed and approved all of the text currently before them this evening. Staff has reviewed the document and what is before the Commission is the Planning Commission approved text with staffs recommended changes as noted in strikethrough or underlined text in the document. He stated staff was recommending the Commission go through the elements, beginning with the introduction, and give direction to staff in regards to the recommended changes, or any additional changes, in the document. Deputy Director Pfost began with a brief overview of the Table of Contents, briefly noting it is a guide to lead one through each of the elements, as in some cases the elements are quite long. Commissioner Gerstner stated he was satisfied with the Table of Contents, however he questioned why nothing is numbered or lettered, as the text loses value if you can't go to a specific page number. Deputy Director Pfost stated he will add the numbers once the document is closer to a final stage. Commissioner Nelson noted that in reading the document he found it very difficult to find the goals in each section, as they were near the end or somewhere in the middle. He questioned if the policies could be placed directly after the goals at the front of each section, Planning Commission Minutes July 23,2013 Page 2 Deputy Director Pfost then briefly explained the Introduction, noting staff has tried to personalize the Introduction a bit. He noted the main titles have changed slightly, and most of the changes in the Introduction are fairly minor, with the exception of the last few pages that focuses in on planning today and in the future as well as a section on implementing the General Plan. Commissioner Gerstner referred to page 1-9 and the reference of bringing benefits of local control to the business owners along Western Avenue. He noted that he has discussed in the past about trying to manage editorial comments and he felt that this may be a bit editorial. He also referred to the fifth bullet under A Plan for a Future, and felt the wording was awkward and different from the other bullet points and could be reworded. Lastly, he referred to page 1-12 and the use of the phrase "technological advances". He felt it was odd that future reviews and updates would be limited to those things driven by technological advances. Commissioner Tomblin referred to page 1-11 and recalled a discussion at a Planning Commission meeting where it was agreed to add some discussion on lighting or light pollution, and he didn't see that in the introduction, Deputy Director Pfost stated there is a lighting and night sky discussion under the Visual Resources Element. He also noted that on page 165 of the document there is a policy in regards to light pollution in association with development. Commissioner Nelson did not like the deletion of the history on page 1-1. He asked if any thought had been given to mentioning the City is a law City rather than a Charter City, noting there is a reference to, a Council Manger type of government. On page 1-4 he would like to see the discussion on what is a General Plan and what are its regulatory requirements remain. He felt that is a good discussion on the laws of the State. Chairman Emenhiser agreed with Commissioner Nelson's comment that the history of the City should remain in the document. He also noted sections where he felt slight clarification to the wording was necessary. Commissioner Emenhiser asked staff if there was anything from the correspondence in regards to the introduction that they would like to comment on. Deputy Director Pfost stated most of the comments in the correspondence were mostly grammatical and staff has taken note of these suggestions, Chairman Emenhiser asked to move ahead with a review of Element No. 1, the Conservation and Open Space element. Deputy Director Pfost explained that state wide most cities' conservation and open space sections are combined into one element because of the aspects of what is being discussed, specifically open space and recreational areas and the conservation of them. Planning Commission Minutes July 23,2013 Page 3 He noted that the Commission will see several paragraphs removed from the element, and explained that most often these paragraphs were often handled in another element and were removed because of redundancy. He referred to page CO-2 and a comment staff has received from a few residents in regards to direction given to staff by the Planning Commission to remove the statement in front of many of the goals that said "it is the goal of the City". He noted the text box in the document requesting this statement be removed from every goal and each element, and asked the Commission if this was their intent. Commissioner Gerstner felt that removing the language and adding staff's recommended language made the document read smoother, Deputy Director Pfost also explained that the original General Plan establishes the goals at the beginning of each element followed by the text, and ending with the policies. He felt the goals establish a general context while the text can establish issue areas, and subsequently there are policies to implement those issue areas. He explained that this format is consistent with the existing General Plan. He suggested that staff can add an index of all of the goals and policies, and as an implementation too] to describe how the City is doing in implementing these goals and policies. Commissioner Gerstner felt that, in general, reformatting the new General Plan any more than necessary should be avoided. Commissioner Nelson referred to page CO-5 and the reference to unpleasant odors in the Eastview area. He did not know if that was necessarily true today and suggested that language be removed. Deputy Director Pfost stated the next section staff received comments on was in regards, to recreation. He noted a handout he distributed with comments from a resident which asked for revisions to the first four paragraphs. He stated staff agrees with those requested revisions with minor modifications, which is in the handout. He also noted and addressed the comments about Abalone Cove Shoreline Park and where it is addressed in the General Plan as well as comments to address the Abalone Cove Reserve in a bit more detail. Commissioner Gerstner read a sentence from CO-51 and the discussion on the civic center master plan, and suggested a revision to the sentence. Commissioner Nelson felt some of the additions added to this element were very valuable, the section reads very well, and had no comments. He suggested that in the more complicated paragraphs the use of bullets would be helpful. Commissioner Gerstner suggested defining extreme slopes earlier in the discussion of extreme slopes. In addition, he suggested on CO-35 staff might want to consider using the term climate change rather than global warming. Planning Commission Minutes July 23,2013 Page 4 Commissioner Nelson questioned if the language in CO-6 could be incorporated with the language in CO-11, as they are related. He also did not agree with the line-through in CO-6, as he felt the discussion ]ends value to the paragraph, Deputy Director Pfost noted staff received a public comment requesting the strike- through language in that paragraph be kept. Deputy Director Pfost began a review of the Land Use Element. He noted on LU-3, goal No. 2 from the original General Plan was inadvertently left out, and has been added back in by staff. He reviewed minor modifications being suggested by staff and the reasons for those modifications. He noted the new land use designations of Open Space Hillside and Open Space Preservation discussed in this element that were created during this process. Commissioner Tomblin noted in LU-38, referencing the Western Avenue Specific Plan, there was nothing mentioned about the current work on the Vision Plan. He questioned if that should be mentioned. Deputy Director Pfost explained the Vision Plan is discussed in another section and agreed it should be put in with LU-38. Commissioner Nelson noted that in LU-39 there is a mention of the redevelopment project area. He realized the Redevelopment Agency no longer exists, but since the redevelopment projects were discussed in the original General Plan he felt it might be helpful to explain in this new General Plan what happened to them. Deputy Director Pfost agreed that was a good point, especially now that the successor agency to the Redevelopment Agency is in place and addresses the issues that were in the Redevelopment Agency. Commissioner Nelson referred to LU-3 and LU-4 where it says "the City shall" in two of the goals. He also noted the language that the City shall "allow" development of institutional facilities, and suggested it be changed to °"encourage" the development of institutional facilities as it is written in the 1975 General Plan. He felt the word "allow" was very restrictive. He felt it would be helpful to put some explanation as to where the pictures are taken from that appear throughout the document. With that, Chairman Emenhiser asked to move on to the Circulation Element. Deputy Director Pfost reviewed the Circulation Element, noting staff felt the added text was pretty straight-forward as it is updating what is being done in regards to the Coastal Vision Plan and Conceptual Trails Plan. He briefly reviewed the various policies discussed in the Element. Planning Commission Minutes July 23,2013 Page 5 Commissioner Tomblin stated he did not see reference to things that have recently been discussed in regards to the major arterials, such as consistency of the walls and fencing. Deputy Director Pfost agreed that discussion is not in this section, but thought the more appropriate place for the discussion would be in the Visual Resource Element. He also felt adding a policy to this section might be appropriate. He explained the Visual Resources Element discusses nighttime sky, views, vistas, corridors, and the entire visual aspect of the City. Commissioner Nelson referred to C-14 and C-15 which discusses the trails network. He hoped that in the end there will be one map with all of the trails depicted on it. Deputy Director Pfost noted the paragraph on C-18 that discusses future planning efforts and the plan to develop a single comprehensive trails network document. With that, Chairman Emenhiser suggested the remaining sections of the draft General Plan be reviewed by the Commission at the next meeting. He asked staff to incorporate the comments made by the Commission at this meeting into the draft document. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 3. Minutes of July 9, 2013 The minutes were unanimously approved as presented. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 4. Pre-Agenda for the meeting on August 13, 2013 The Commissioners discussed the upcoming meetings in August, and it was agreed to cancel the August 13th meeting, thereby making the next Planning Commission on August 27, 2013. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:54 p.m. to August 27, 2013. Planning Commission Minutes July 23,2013 Page e